While most of the California energy discussions this week have surrounded the Sunrise Powerlink, the California State Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee held an informational hearing to this week to discuss where the in-state utilities are with regard to securing their mandated requirement to provide renewable electricity for their customers (the law requires the three California in-state utilities to secure a minimum of 20% of their entire electricity load from renewable energy sources by 2010).
In a nutshell, the utilities are struggling to get there – which has lead to arguments that the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) mandate is broken. I’ll be blunt – I don’t think that the RPS is perfect, and yes it needs work – but it’s a step in the right direction if we are to get to a cleaner energy future.
Astonishingly – OK, not really – the myopic views of the legislative committee members (save one senator) – should tell all concerned that the legislature is in grave need of an education on how the RPS can work and what it’s going to cost. At one point, legislators actually agreed that new transmission development is critical to securing renewable generation that is in various stages of development.
Absent the new transmission, proposed projects would be unable to get the energy to where it would be consumed, financing will not materialize for these projects and the State’s goal of securing a greener future will not happen. Maybe the legislature has woken up to that reality. Steel in the ground (green generation) will cost us money. New transmission will cost us money. I only hope that when we debate this fact – we will remember to honestly weigh the cost against the benefits this brings.
It will take infrastructure of many kinds to get us to a greener future. I hope the blinders can come off and the cacophony of the opposition will subside long enough to honestly weigh what it will take to get us to the greener future everyone is asking for.
Mr. Arredondo, you still have to come to grips with the fact that the Sunrise Powerlink will contribute more to greenhouse gas emissions than it will save, even if it carried 100% solar power (which it won't). This fact is pointed out on page ES-25 of the Environmental Impact Report on the project.
Given this fact, what's the point of developing renewable energy if it's only going to contribute to global warming? Sure, renewables are great, but desert-generated solar power should go to those nearby desert cities that need lots of AC. If it's going to be transmitted long distances, this should be done on existing lines, since the majority of the lifetime GHG release involved with these lines has already taken place.
I strongly encourage you and your readers to look at the "San Diego Smart Energy 2020" report. It's all about infrastructure, but smart infrastructure that will give us clean, reliable energy generated locally. Better infrastructure alternatives to the Sunrise Powerlink are indeed available, and perhaps that's why SANDAG's Energy Working Group voted 10-5 against the Sunrise Powerlink yesterday.
Posted by: Lhogue | February 29, 2008 at 12:10 PM